For outcome evaluations, it is recommended that the senior management of the country office form a small evaluation focal team (EFT) within the programme unit, as described in Box 6. This team of two to four members assumes primary responsibility for the organization of an outcome evaluation, and works actively to support the work of the independent outcome evaluation team.
Working as an evaluation focal team is more efficient than one person working alone because outcome evaluations touch upon a broad range of issues. With the UNDP emphasis on results, a small team needs to be involved in the process. This is in contrast to project evaluations, where the Project Manager took charge of planning and ensuring that the exercise was undertaken within the framework of the TOR.
Ideally, preparations for an outcome evaluation are linked to the process of outcome monitoring, and not separate from it. The same programme staff should be involved
5 3 SOURCE OF I N F O R M AT I O N CCF/Country Programme SRF/ROAR CCA/UNDAF Monitoring and evaluation reports Regional/Sub- regional reports Partners’ reports Official source data Research papers
Pa rtnership stra t egy X X X X X X UNDP contribution X X X X X U n d e rlying Fa c t o r s X X X X X X Outcome status X X X X X X X
TABLE 6. D O C U M E N TATION SOURCES AND CORRESPONDING CATEGORIES OF A N A LY S I S W H AT IT MAY TELL YOU A BO U T
H A N D BOOK ON MONITORING AND EVA L UATIN G FOR RESULT S
5 4
in monitoring progress towards a given outcome and also in preparing for the evaluation. These staff members, along with partners in an outcome group (where one exists), are responsible for the preparation.
The EFT serves a useful function in connecting the evaluation team with the programme unit, the senior management and the partners. In addition, the EFT is responsible for substantive and logistical arrangements, such as drafting terms of reference for the evaluation team, identifying suitable candidates (individuals or firms) for the evaluation team, hiring the evaluation team, ensuring a participatory evaluation process, contacting partners, backstopping the evaluation team and commenting on the evaluation draft report. The EFT ensures a high level of participation within the country office and among partners at all stages of the evaluation process. Participation helps keep all interested parties informed of the evaluation progress and helps ensure the credibility and quality of the exercise. Some of the most relevant input to the evaluation process may come from the following parties:
■ Senior management: Senior management gives direction and vision to the evaluation; provides information on the strategic positioning of the office, soft assistance and the SRF; and contributes first-hand information on planned or potential assistance (e.g. preliminary discussions with high-level authorities on specific assistance or services and soft pipeline).
■ Programme staff: Programme staff enriches discussions through the exchange of information on related or complementary initiatives in other thematic areas, key outputs from projects and programmes, key ongoing soft assistance and linkages with cross-cutting issues (e.g. governance, environment, gender, risk management).
■ Human Development Report staff: If available, this staff provides the team with recent information on human development variables, statistics and other relevant information.
BOX 6. FORMING THE EVALUATION FOCAL TEAM
C o u n t ry offices are advised to set up an evaluation focal team (EFT) within the office as soon as a give n outcome is selected for evaluation during the planning stage . Establishing an EFT from the start offers seve r a l b e n e f i t s . Fi r s t , it introduces a team approach within the CO to handle the work entailed in tracking deve l o p m e n ts connected with the eva l u a t i o n . At the same time, it widens learning and cross fertilization of know l e d ge within the CO. S e c o n d , it provides a team to monitor the outcome automatically during the period leading up to the beginning of the eva l u a t i o n , t h e r e by increasing the connection between outcome monitoring a n d outcome eva l u a t i o n .
When preparing for an eva l u a t i o n , a country office revisits the outcome to be evaluated as one of the first s t e p s . At this time, it is the EFT that can best ascertain the continued relevance of the outcome as already stated/identified for eva l u a t i o n . For example, it is possible that changes in the circumstances could make it necessary to change the env i s a ged timing, scope and nature (that is, from light/forward looking to mid-term / course adjusting or late/backwards looking, or vice versa) of the evaluation in order to enhance the va l u e o f eva l u a t i ve exercise. A well-considered team approach is more effective in making decisions on such issues than is an individual approach.
THE EVA L UATION PROCESS (“HOW TO. . .” )
■ “Think tank” staff: If available, this staff provides context, suggestions on how to approach outcome-related matters, hints on sources of information and contacts with key partners.
■ Partners: Various kinds of partners can enhance understanding of simulta- neous assistance towards the same outcome and help to assess UNDP’s partnership strategy.